Something rather than nothing

I think its astounding, that we have existance at all. By my reasoning I can find no reson why there would be any form of existance yet there is. In such an ordered universe why is it that its orrigins seem so hopelessly illogical? Anyone else found that existance has gone against all odds?

Many people would use this as the perfect argument to express why God exists.

In the framework of the above skepticism what seems more likely: the substantive world as we understand it today popped into existence ‘just beause’ or a transcendental God has existed forever (or however you choose to explain God’s origins) created the world. It CAN be argued that through parsimony this would lead to a proof for God.

I can see that, God does not seem so unlikely when we think about orrigins. Well no more unlikely than any other theory in relation to this

totally bro, the question of why anything exists at all will probably never be answered. It seems logical that there be some kind of Creator, I don’t know why an idea like that is so often scorned.

Possibly because there is absolutely zero evidence for it and it is strictly unnecessary.

What precisely does the idea of a “creator” contribute to the solution of the riddle of “Why something instead of nothing?”

Can you give just one tiny reason that the riddle “Why a creator instead of nothing?” is one scrap more understandable than is the riddle “Why something instead of nothing?”

When we substitute the word “Creator” for “something,” aren’t we in essence still at the same place in our inquiry that we were before?

Well, how about instead of looking at it as one point in time in which we may or may not exist, look at it as the one of VERY few times in which life does come about.

Instead of looking at someone who won the lottery and thinking “wow, what are the chances that single individual would win the lotto? It must be god,” think “out of the millions of people that entered the lottery, that person won.”

It seems to me that people who think a creator must have been the cause of our universe are also thinking that life must be everywhere and happening all the time. If everything in our universe happens by chance, why could it not be that we are lucky? Why does it have to be something else? Unlikely does not mean impossible. Especially considering the size of the universe and the amount of time involved.

An interesting and ancient question. Why something rather than nothing, indeed? This is the first truly ontological question. But yet there is a still more interesting question:

Why do we believe in ‘something’ in the first place, or rather, that the ‘something’ does not already have ‘nothing’ contained within it, perhaps even as the living heart is in the body, that nothingness is ‘in’ the world.

Perhaps we bring nothingness into the world with consciousness, and its apparent material independence. This independence is the result of thousands of years of domestication, a false independence which masks a deeper unconscious enslavement, and is by no means a coincidence…

Why are you asking this question ? Why do we ask questions ? Exactly what kind of explanation would satisfy this question ? And even if you did find a perfect explanation, would it be sufficient or wouldn’t you ask another similar question ?

I think that questions like this are simply tricks of the mind, are attempts to answer things that can’t have any answer because they are ill defined, because any sequence of symbols (as written sentences like this) can be a valid response, because it is always a self referential question just manipulating the sequence of symbols in another combination that should smehow make us believe or convince us that that particular sequence “explains” why, that that sequence can possibly “satisfy” us, and in the end it is just an act of self convincing that a given sequence is satisafctory.

Why something instead of nothing ? because something is exactly equal to nothing so there is no why.

How?

It doesn’t matter. What you are looking for is a subtle “feeling” or “emotion” that gives you the sensation that an answer is “right” or somewhat “right”. Without this “state of being convinced” or state of mind you wouldn’t be satisfied. Without this mindset that mathematicians have for example when they find the solution to a problem you wouldn’t be satisfied and would keep on asking other questions.

How on earth could there be a “How” ? I can invent any explanation, the more bizarre and absurd the better, but it doesn’t matter at all if there is any answer to such an abstract and absurd question.

Do you want an answer ? because something and nothing is the same because there is no scale or machine that can distinguish between the two. If that is not good enough how about, because I cannot distinguish between something and nothing.

None of you ever play with dominoes or tinkertoys? jeez one thing happens it triggers another thing, one atom connects with others and boom things happen. How hard is that? It only took one little tiny stray atom to have a burp of sorts to start the whole ball rolling.

Jeeze a simple I dont know would surfice

Well thats the easy bit, but it has nothing to do with the question unfortunatly

What is little and what is big ? For a big enough observer, atoms don’t even exist because they can’t be measured or perceived, like an observer that is about 10^100 light years in size. Or even for a small enougb observer the same thing happens because there is no way that it could perceive such a large structure for example for an observer that is 10^-100 mm in size (atoms would be about 10^-9 mm). And then what is cause and effect ? what is the minimal time interval ? and if there is a change from one state to the next, isn’t it always something completely impossible to explain, isn’t it always a jump from one state to a new one even if in 10^-100 seconds ?

There is no difference between knowing and not knowing in this field. You can only know technical - scientific facts and techniques since you can apply them in some practical way, but there is no way to apply the answer to this question in any practical way except as a " feeling" or sensation or as a mental state.

You do know this is a philosophy forum right? Its about Ideas, not absolutes

I’m satisfied with the following answer:

The nature of chaos is such that it inevitably seeks to spontaneously build patterns.

At the smallest level, we can detect sub-atomic particles that for absolutely no apparent reason tend to behave in accordance with one another. They build atoms, which then build molecules, etc…

Then you got the biological level. Evolution gives rise to a whole new and more advanced, more itricate pattern. Life is clearly distinguished from non-life by its participation in the patterns of evolution. It’s quite fascinating, if you ask me.

Ecological patterns are also spontaneously created by life. Everything appears to be guided towards equilibrium! How the heck do chaotic sub-atomic particles figure out to work together in such a way as to maintain equilibriums in ecological communities?.. Spontaneous patternization.

The chaos in this universe is simply directed towards forming more and more intricate patterns.

Us, humans, are at the cutting edge of the universe’s patternization. And look at what we’re trying to do: ORGANIZE ourselves. We’re trying to work an even higher level of pattern - culture, government, civilization…

The most obvious question that this answer gives rise to is: Why is chaos so apparently oriented towards giving rise to order?

I think the answer to that will soon be found when string theory will at last be completed. I predict that it will eventually be proven that this “patternization” effect is simply mathematically inevitable.

But still you cant have a pattern unless you first have the string

and to:nameta9

Sure it does, all origins started from one miniscule submicroscopic particle moving in a pattern that brought it to another or changed it and thus a whole kaliedascope of action and reaction came about. Life is just the result of the original event. Time is irrelevent on such a large scale. We can’t even fathom the age of the universe and beyond. One tiny itsy bitsy thing was the trigger to all things. Life is just a result of what took several eternities for all we know.

The answer does have to have grand scale philosophys or beliefs, it does not need quantum physics, it just needs a tiny bit of logic and grade school science. The only real question remains is when life in the universe actually first came about, not why.

The idea of a creator is appealing because it shifts the ‘why’ of the universe to a ‘how’. Instead of trying to figure out why the universe exists and there is stuff in it (which would be impossible to solve) the argument shifts to how the universe came to be and more specifically where God came from. That we can at least hypothesize about and make observations about to try and solve.

Basically, with God we shift the problem to a more solvable state. The problem becomes simpler as we can ponder how to solve it. Parsimony.

As I said, this is only some people’s opinions.